Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    In regards to moving Hill for a PG....you're cool with taking the ball out of PG24 and Lance's hands and putting into this pass-first PG? Cuz getting a Pass-first PG....or one that is a better ball handler than Hill that is only effective when he has the ball in his hands......will do precisely that.

    It will put the ball in their hands, so they can score. Hill finally getting over the 8 second line then pounding the air out of the ball until 7 seconds left before passing the ball to a player who really doesn't have a good opportunity to score is a detriment to the Pacers offense. A good passing PG makes his team mates better players, and that's far from a description of Geo Hill. Hill is a SG in a PG body with a SG mentality. He's an off the ball player.

    Someone the other day stated Hill took the PG job away from DC. HORSEFEATHERS! Hill got the job, b/c DC was injured. He had 50 plus games b4 DC got injured to take the PG position away from DC, and couldn't get the job done. He inherited the job b/c of an injury to DC.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

      none of these guys are under the radar(maybe Rivers). Steve Nash should be off the radar.


      Good luck trying to upgrade the SG spot Portland you won't find a SG much better than Wes Mathews. I don't agree with most of this article.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        In regards to moving Hill for a PG....you're cool with taking the ball out of PG24 and Lance's hands and putting into this pass-first PG? Cuz getting a Pass-first PG....or one that is a better ball handler than Hill that is only effective when he has the ball in his hands......will do precisely that.
        In the event that Hibbert stays, and we can get someone who can score. And set Hibbert up better? Then yes.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

          IMO, it is a waste of time and money for the Pacers to get a pass first PG. Nobody on the Pacers team will set a screen to get a teammate free to receive that pass. If they did, Lance is the only player we have who would use that screen and since he and West are the only players we have that will pass the ball to an open man coming off a screen, the new guy would not have any targets. Nash would need to have oxygen tanks tied to him so he can dribble at least 22 seconds every possession before shooting a defended jump shot, just like Hill does. We have a lot more problems than a pass-first pg.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
            none of these guys are under the radar(maybe Rivers). Steve Nash should be off the radar.


            Good luck trying to upgrade the SG spot Portland you won't find a SG much better than Wes Mathews. I don't agree with most of this article.
            "Under the Radar" was used to eliminate the pipedreams that are Rondo, Lowry, Thomas, Kyrie, etc... I likely could have use a better term. It was my 1st go at writing an article, so I''ll learn from it. Appreciate the negative feedback. It actually helps more than the positive.

            Wish I would've added Dennis Schroeder, but my 2 year old wanted her daddy, so I cut it short and combined the last few.

            I agree with Nash, I even but he's likely done, but worth checking on his health. Folks still want JO and Brandon Rush back, so not sure a healthy Nash is that absurd. I've read he's not healthy though.

            As for Wes Matthews, he's a really solid player and the Blazers would be fine keeping him at the 2. They'd also be fine with Lopez at center, but those are still two spots they would look to upgrade if they had to, if not starters, then more serviceable bench players at those positions.

            Thanks again. I truly expected maybe 1-2 replies on this thread. You guys rock

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

              Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
              "Under the Radar" was used to eliminate the pipedreams that are Rondo, Lowry, Thomas, Kyrie, etc... I likely could have use a better term. It was my 1st go at writing an article, so I''ll learn from it. Appreciate the negative feedback. It actually helps more than the positive.

              Wish I would've added Dennis Schroeder, but my 2 year old wanted her daddy, so I cut it short and combined the last few.

              I agree with Nash, I even but he's likely done, but worth checking on his health. Folks still want JO and Brandon Rush back, so not sure a healthy Nash is that absurd. I've read he's not healthy though.

              As for Wes Matthews, he's a really solid player and the Blazers would be fine keeping him at the 2. They'd also be fine with Lopez at center, but those are still two spots they would look to upgrade if they had to, if not starters, then more serviceable bench players at those positions.

              Thanks again. I truly expected maybe 1-2 replies on this thread. You guys rock
              It's cool to see you have an article posted in a news publication. I'm always amazed at how various longtime members have prominence in ways we don't know about.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                Indiana and Portland are what I call "ensemble" teams. They rely on a group of very good starters instead of the more standard formula of a big 3. A big problem with this approach (which not everyone appreciates immediately) is that it is expensive, generally more expensive than the big 3 formula. Why? Well, because you're paying 5 people instead of 3. Mathematically, paying a big 3 $20m each totals $60m, so the equivalent cost for an ensemble team is one where everyone is making $12m each. Well, both Portland and Indiana have players making more than $12m, so the savings will have to come elsewhere in the roster.

                For Portland, they're lucky in that Lillard is still on a rookie contract, but Matthews and Robin Lopez both are on affordable deals for just one year longer. So IMO Portland is not really in a financial position to look for an upgrade - it might take most of their available money just to retain Matthews and Lopez next year. But even then, Matthews and Lopez are bound to be cheaper options that they'll need to offset the more expensive contracts of Aldridge and Lillard.

                The Pacers are in a tougher position. First, after this year, all our starters will have ended their rookie contracts. Second, 3 of our guys are already at that (admittedly arbitrary) $12m line or more, compared to 1 for Portland. In this light, George Hill's value becomes more apparent - he's probably going to be the cheapest starter next year! If Lance does come in under $10m as many predict, we can thank his bad rep for the discount that probably let's us keep the team together. If not, well we might have hard financial decisions to make.

                So I think this whole idea of looking for upgrades might be misguided. The salary cap/luxury tax might force us to cut salary next year, which is usually accompanied by a talent downgrade. I mean, of course we hope for deals that both save money and upgrades the team, but I'd say deals like that are hard to come by. IMO, the money factor alone probably rules out Nash and Calderon from your list.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                  Bring Jarrett Jack back!!!
                  Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    Indiana and Portland are what I call "ensemble" teams. They rely on a group of very good starters instead of the more standard formula of a big 3. A big problem with this approach (which not everyone appreciates immediately) is that it is expensive, generally more expensive than the big 3 formula. Why? Well, because you're paying 5 people instead of 3. Mathematically, paying a big 3 $20m each totals $60m, so the equivalent cost for an ensemble team is one where everyone is making $12m each. Well, both Portland and Indiana have players making more than $12m, so the savings will have to come elsewhere in the roster.

                    For Portland, they're lucky in that Lillard is still on a rookie contract, but Matthews and Robin Lopez both are on affordable deals for just one year longer. So IMO Portland is not really in a financial position to look for an upgrade - it might take most of their available money just to retain Matthews and Lopez next year. But even then, Matthews and Lopez are bound to be cheaper options that they'll need to offset the more expensive contracts of Aldridge and Lillard.

                    The Pacers are in a tougher position. First, after this year, all our starters will have ended their rookie contracts. Second, 3 of our guys are already at that (admittedly arbitrary) $12m line or more, compared to 1 for Portland. In this light, George Hill's value becomes more apparent - he's probably going to be the cheapest starter next year! If Lance does come in under $10m as many predict, we can thank his bad rep for the discount that probably let's us keep the team together. If not, well we might have hard financial decisions to make.

                    So I think this whole idea of looking for upgrades might be misguided. The salary cap/luxury tax might force us to cut salary next year, which is usually accompanied by a talent downgrade. I mean, of course we hope for deals that both save money and upgrades the team, but I'd say deals like that are hard to come by. IMO, the money factor alone probably rules out Nash and Calderon from your list.
                    I agree with this completely to be honest. All of my targets other than Vasquez really had trading Roy Hibbert in mind. Not that I think we have to trade Hibbert, or should take back bad contracts for Hibbert, I just think he's the most logical piece to move that would still have good value. At $14mil a year the Pacers could look to take back multiple pieces for that amount. Hibbert is clearly a defensive presence and low post option when he's locked in, but there has been a lot of inconsistency. Inconsistency at $14mil to the tune of multiple 4pts, 2rebs type games are hard to stomach.

                    I agree Nash and Calderon are long shots on the list, but you could also look at it where the Lakers have cap space, so what if we save $5mil and can use that to help resign Stephenson, or get a trade exception. Perhaps the Lakers toss in #7? Highly doubtful, but Kobe doesn't want to rebuild..who knows. With Calderon we're looking at $6.8mil so we're like $7mil away from Hibbert, Mavs could throw in Wright or Dalembert, as well as one of their 2nd rounders. May not sound like a great trade, but it helps the cap situation and we may not actually lose that much production from the Center position.

                    OKC could send Reggie Jackson, Perkins, Collison, Perry Jones, perhaps their 1st for Hibbert. Portland McCollum, Lopez, Robinson, Leonard or a deal like that for Hibbert, Austin Rivers, Morrow and Ryan Anderson, or send Anderson to Rockets for Asik.

                    All could be far fetched, or could be realistic, but I agree paying 5 players will be difficult. Not sure Hill's value, but I think we could move Hibbert and become a better team without losing too much production from the center spot than we already had.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                      This guy's mock actually suggests the Lakers trading #7 for Hibbert. Grain of salt I know, but helps my thought process.

                      http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sport...lumn?track=rss

                      Brian Schmitz
                      Magic Insider
                      11:04 p.m. EDT, June 21, 2014


                      1.Cleveland Andrew Wiggins SF Fr. Kansas. Cavs select healthy Kansas guy.


                      2.Milwaukee Jabari Parker SF Fr. Duke. Bucks enjoy tanking reward.


                      3. Philadelphia Noah Vonleh PF Fr. Indiana. Sixers didn't need PGs.


                      4. Orlando Joel Embiid C Fr. Kansas. TRADE Embiid to Boston.


                      5. Utah Aaron Gordon PF Fr. Arizona. Jazz need athleticism.


                      6. Boston Dante Exum PG Int. Australia. TRADE Exum, future pick to Orlando.


                      7. LA Lakers Marcus Smart PG Soph. Okla. St. TRADE Smart to Ind. for Roy Hibbert.


                      8. Sacramento Julius Randle PF Fr. Kentucky. Pair him with D-Cousins.


                      9. Charlotte (From Detroit) Gary Harris SG Soph. Mich. St. Nice two-way player.


                      10. Philadelphia (From New Orleans) Nik Stauskas SG Soph. Mich. Sixers get top shooter.


                      11. Denver Zach LaVine SG Fr. UCLA. Watch Nuggets run now.


                      12. Orlando (From New York via Denver) Doug McDermott SF Sr. Creighton. Magic love seniors.


                      13. Minnesota Adreian Payne PF Sr. Mich. St. Kevin Love's successor.


                      14. Phoenix Elfrid Payton PG Jr. La.-Lafayette. TRADE Payton, No. 18 to Chicago.


                      15. Atlanta Rodney Hood SF So. Duke. Has tools, needs time.


                      16. Chicago (From Charlotte) Dario Saric F Int. Croatia TRADE Saric, No. 19 to Phoenix.


                      17. Boston (From Brooklyn) T.J. Warren SF Soph. N.C. St. Offers bench scoring.


                      18. Phoenix (from Washington). Kyle Anderson SF Soph. UCLA. Playmaking point forward.


                      19. Chicago James Young SG Fr. Kentucky. Bulls grab shooter.


                      20. Toronto Tyler Ennis PG Fr. Syracuse. In case Kyle Lowry bolts.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                        We need to fix the C position a whole lot more than PG. Roy can't hold position and score to save his life. He cannot defend the position because guys take him outside. Sorry, but time to stick a fork in the big fella.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          I agree with this completely to be honest. All of my targets other than Vasquez really had trading Roy Hibbert in mind. Not that I think we have to trade Hibbert, or should take back bad contracts for Hibbert, I just think he's the most logical piece to move that would still have good value.
                          In that case, maybe you should have wrote the Hibbert article first then? Seems backward to write about potential point guard upgrades when apparently there is bigger move you've assumed would happen first.

                          If Hibbert is moved, who do you have replacing him? Hopefully it's not Ian...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                            In that case, maybe you should have wrote the Hibbert article first then? Seems backward to write about potential point guard upgrades when apparently there is bigger move you've assumed would happen first.

                            If Hibbert is moved, who do you have replacing him? Hopefully it's not Ian...
                            I just have to say we are still fortunate to have Ian. He's a good backup C IMO and even though we cannot win a title with him in the middle, he could at least keep us competitive. We have come so far from the time Troy Murphy was defending the rim.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                              I hope we do get Rondo and then people realize the problem with the Pacers being a ****** passing team isn't just Hill. It's every single one of the starters. When's the last time we made two passes inside of four seconds that wasn't in transition? Every single one of them catches a pass and sits there for a solid two seconds, just doing nothing, apparently they have to try and remember which basket is theirs or something.
                              Part of that is due to not having a floor general though, which is typically the point guard. Hill is too passive for that role, and PG isn't a good enough passer to pull it off, either.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Under the Radar Point Guard Targets

                                Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                                This guy's mock actually suggests the Lakers trading #7 for Hibbert. Grain of salt I know, but helps my thought process.

                                http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sport...lumn?track=rss



                                Hey I'm down with that. I think we'd also have money after that deal to get a replacement for Roy. Maybe Gortat? Gasol? And we could still get a 2 guard or PG upgrade by renouncing Turner, trading Hill, renouncing Scola, and trading Ian. Since we'd sign Ivan Johnson for the vet min. to replace Ian. I LOVE THAT IDEA.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X